Behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. Its possibly a parole condition as well

Scottish law - from wiki

There are major differences between English law and Scots law with respect to dealing with breach of the peace; unlike England and Wales where criminal penalties apply to the behaviour leading to or liable to cause a breach of the peace, it is a specific criminal offence in Scotland which is prosecuted daily in the Sheriff Courts and due to its common law definition it can be applied to a number of scenarios. The maximum punishment if a case is remitted to the High Court is imprisonment for life (as of 2002 [8]).

The Scots Law definition of a breach of the peace is "conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community.[9]"

A constable may arrest any person, without warrant, who commits a breach of the peace. A member of the public may not arrest a person for behaviour which amounts to no more than a breach of the peace (i.e. an arrest is not always for the offence for which someone is eventually prosecuted but can be for a more serious crime that appears to be occurring).

Breach of the peace can include, but is not limited to, any riotous behavious (which includes 'rowdiness' or 'brawling') and any disorderly behaviour. This behaviour doesn't have to be noisy but still of a nature that would cause concern to other people. Examples include: 'Peeping Tom' type behaviour, persistently following someone, delivering 'threatening' letters and 'streaking' or 'mooning'.

To prove a Breach of the Peace the most important things to prove is that someone was Alarmed, Annoyed or Disturbed by the incident.

This offence can take place anywhere i.e. a house, a public street, a private office or any public space.

It just shows how messed up aspects of our society are - you have pseudo-porn available openly at pretty much every garage/newsagent in the country, yet one naked guy wandering about needs sending to prison repeatedly.

IMO - it's a bit like Contempt of Court, for which, one might argue, sentences are unusually severe. Basically, you are refusing to obey the law despite being warned of the consequences.

It was pointed out previously that he was deliberately choosing to walk in places where confrontation would take place. If all he wanted to do was walk around naked, he could head for somewhere like Torridon or Fisherfield where he would be a lot less likely to come into contact with other folk. Of course, the midges might appreciate that too.

Don't get me wrong, the guy is clearly a weirdo, but he probably enjoys all the attention he gets from these court cases. I was always told if you ignore an attention seeker, they will probably go away. I dread to think how many thousands of pounds have been wasted on arresting, trying and incarcerating this guy.

I can't get my head around how our natural state can be unlawful, same for urinating in a public place, totally natural bodily function. How can that be illegal, especially now most public toilets have been closed down......We're not as different from the Victorians as we think.

same for urinating in a public place, totally natural bodily function.

I had to urinate into the bushes at the side of the platform at a train station t'other day. The station toilets were closed and I was bursting. What am I sposed to do, hold it in and cause myself damage?

Urinating in doorsteps and that is out of order, but into a gutter or something should be perfectly legal and I can't see any reason why it's not, quite frankly.

I had to urinate into the bushes at the side of the platform at a train station t'other day. The station toilets were closed and I was bursting. What am I sposed to do, hold it in and cause myself damage?

IMO the Naked Rambler is being abused by the legal system. It cannot be right that a human being in their most natural state is committing a criminal act. He is not acting in a sexually inappropriate way and his beliefs are harming no-one. People who get their knickers in a twist are acting on THEIR beliefs. They need to get over it.

It cannot be right that a human being in their most natural state is committing a criminal act. He is not acting in a sexually inappropriate way

1) it's about what's appropriate - our society has mores and customs that say that wearign clothes is what happens. Like all mores and customs ("don't steal") we have developed a set of rules that support them and instituted punishements that are intended to deter rule breaking. This man has, in effect, decided that he is outside the law and the law is saying 'Err, no you're not' and applyign punishments to him. The fact he is ignoring this is what led me to believe he has mental health issues - it's beyond stubborn now.

2) a lot of people would argue that displaying your parts to the wider public in Sainsburys is, inhernetly, sexually inappropriate - If I walked around with my wanger hanging out of my jeans flies I'd expect to be stopped and admonished.

I really feel sorry for him. It is outrageously unjust that a man (or woman) should be imprisoned for being a man (or woman).

I admire him for sticking to his guns, but If it were me I'd probably just be wearing a very tight fitting, flesh-coloured lycra willy-sock by now. 99% of the freedom, and clothed in the eyes of the law.